Texas passes law requiring guilt-trip for abortion-seekers

[Chardok]

From HERE

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Gov. Rick Perry has signed into law a requirement that doctors conduct a sonogram before performing an abortion.

The hotly debated legislation passed the Republican-controlled House and Senate despite vocal protests against it.

The law requires the doctor to conduct a sonogram, provide the woman a chance to see the image and hear the fetal heartbeat. The doctor is required to explain to the woman what he sees, including the presence of internal organs or limbs. The only exception is for victims or rape and incest or in cases where the fetus has fatal deformities.

Proponents say it will ensure women are fully informed to make a decision. Opponents say it is intended to prevent women from getting an abortion.

The law is among the strongest in the nation

I really hate this place. This is just the lowest of the low.

[Moby Halcyon]

This is a pretty common conservative tactic these days. Wonder governor Rick Scott in Florida had a law exactly like this pass last week.

[kaeneth]

I'm not sure it is the 'lowest of the low'. While I don't think it should be mandatory, conveying the full gravity of terminating a potential human being to the mother beforehand does not seem completely unreasonable. It is simply the Pro-Life people trying to come up with something that won't horribly backfire to discourage abortions.

My only issue with it is it will raise costs for abortions and thereby make it more expensive for low income mothers who are barely scrapping by.

[Zaune]

Mixed feelings about this, to be honest. If it means some women have second thoughts and decide that they're going to give parenthood a shot after all then that's not necessarily a bad thing.
But I suppose it's too much to hope for that Governor Perry is also pushing for improved access to ante- and postnatal care, subsidised daycare and other measures to enable the women deterred from terminating their pregnancies to be in a position to raise their kids well.

[NecronLord]

Wasn't there a study that suggested these things backfire, by actually reassuring most women seeking early terminations that they're dealing with nothing more than a clump of tissue?

[Rahvin]

I'm not sure it is the 'lowest of the low'. While I don't think it should be mandatory, conveying the full gravity of terminating a potential human being to the mother beforehand does not seem completely unreasonable. It is simply the Pro-Life people trying to come up with something that won't horribly backfire to discourage abortions.

My only issue with it is it will raise costs for abortions and thereby make it more expensive for low income mothers who are barely scrapping by.

The law mandates jerking the emotional chains of women who are likely already emotionally vulnerable and have had to make a difficult decision. The woman should have the right to decline the sonogram and the doctor's information - just like she has the right to decline any other medical procedure. What the GOP is doing here is basically saying "you can't have this medical procedure unless you first sit through this other medical procedure and get forced to listen to the anti-abortion point of view." I'm fine with requiring medical procedures prior to other medical procedures if they're actually necessary for the second procedure to be safe and successful - but the sonogram's intent is specifically and exclusively intended to change a pregnant woman's mind by manipulating her with a guilt trip. They don't need to do it - they just want to make her feel bad so that she decides not to go through with it.

Making information available[/]i is a good thing. Forcing people to listen to an extremely biased set of information such that its specific and sole intent is to override the woman's decision through emotional manipulation is disgusting.

[Serafina]

Mixed feelings about this, to be honest. If it means some women have second thoughts and decide that they're going to give parenthood a shot after all then that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Actually, yes, it is - she'd essentially be bullied into having a child. But hey, nothing like emotionally scaring women in the name of your ideology.

Do you SERIOUSLY think that any woman takes an abortion lightly? The decision might be pretty clear for some, because they just can't have this baby - but even then it's not something you do lightly.
I'm frankly sick of the notion that women just casually pop into an abortion clinic like you would for a new set of glasses or something.


Germany is actually requiring something similar: a mandatory counseling session about the decision whether or not to have an abortion. That institution has been abused quite often to give the women wrong information, and i am firmly opposed to the way it is done. I am actually in favor of making sure that the woman understands the procedure and consequences - but that is ALREADY being done by abortion providers.

Keep in mind that there were already several bills that tried to push actual misinformation about abortion on women - such as stating that it increases the risk of breast cancer (completely bogus), regularly causes infertility (it can happen, but far from regulary) or a variety of misinformation about the fetus (such as lying about the existence of a brain or nervous system).

[lance]

Wasn't there a study that suggested these things backfire, by actually reassuring most women seeking early terminations that they're dealing with nothing more than a clump of tissue?

I think so.